ANITA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated five revision petitions, arising out of the similar impugned orders between the same parties, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition. The matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that, initially, the Sub-Registrar had referred the sale deeds of the petitioners to the Collector to determine the market value of the land in question for the purpose of stamp duty, u/s. 47-A of The Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Act and Rules, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act & relevant Rules"). The Collector was stated to have assessed the excess market value of the land in litigation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- at the back of petitioners-vendees and accordingly ordered for recovery of deficient stamp duty, by way of a very brief impugned order dated 28.11.1995.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the appeals before the District Judge (Appellate Court). Since no body appeared on their behalf, so, their connected appeals were dismissed in default on 26.7.1996. The applications for their restoration filed by the petitioners were dismissed as well, by means of impugned orders dated 1.9.1997 by the appellate Court.

(3.) Sequelly, the petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petitions, to challenge the impugned orders, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.